DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishita (US 2015/0128632).
As to claim 1, Kishita discloses an HVAC system comprising:
a vapor compression loop 4 configured to receive a working fluid;
an additional fluid loop 3 configured to selectively bias an additional fluid to a condenser 42 and evaporator 44 of the vapor compression loop; and
an air cooled heat exchanger 32 disposed on the additional fluid loop and configured to selectively cool the additional fluid.
As to claim 2, the additional fluid loop 3 of Kishita is configured to circulate the additional fluid to a process load heat exchanger 31.
As to claim 8, Kishita discloses a valve 36 as claimed.
As to claim 9, Kishita discloses controlling valve 36 in response to the ambient temperature at exchanger 32 (Figs. 4-6) and thus is considered to operate in the manner as claimed.
As to claim 12, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the method as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus of Kishita.
As to claims 18-19, the claims are rejected as being disclosed by Kishita for the same reasons as discussed in the rejections above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishita as applied above, and further in view of Ridder (US 2018/0209675).
As to claim 3, Kishita does not explicitly teach a valve capable of blocking flow from the process load heat exchanger. However, Ridder teaches that it is known to provide a valve 630 which blocks flow from a load exchanger to a vapor compression system (Fig. 8). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kishita to incorporate a valve as claimed and taught by Ridder as it would provide additional flow control for adjusting the temperature at the load.
As to claim 4, Kishita does not explicitly teach a valve capable of blocking flow of additional fluid to the condenser as claimed. However, Ridder teaches that it is known to provide a valve 626 to control flow of additional fluid to a condenser 612 (Fig. 8). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kishita to incorporate a valve as claimed and taught by Ridder as it would provide additional flow control for adjusting the temperature at the load.
As to claim 5, the modified apparatus includes an additional valve 624 as claimed (Ridder; Fig. 8).
As to claim 6, Kishita does not explicitly teach a valve downstream of the air cooled exchanger32 as claimed. However, Ridder teaches that it is known to provide a valve 624 downstream of an air cooled exchanger (Fig. 8). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kishita to incorporate a valve as claimed and taught by Ridder as it would provide additional flow control for adjusting the temperature at the load.
As to claims 13-16, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the method as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the modified apparatus of Kishita.
Claims 7, 10-11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishita as applied above.
As to claim 7, Kishita teaches a first pump 33 but does not explicitly teach a second and third pump as claimed. However, it is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Since applicant has not disclosed that placing additional pumps within the system does anything more than produce predictable results, the mere duplication of the pump in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Kishita to include second and third pumps as claimed, in order to predictably provide fluid flow in the system.
As to claims 10-11 and 20, while the claimed branches and valves are not explicitly taught by Kishita, the claims merely recite branched flow lines and valves for controlling flow. It would have been an obvious design choice to modify the Kishita reference by having branched flow lines and valves as claimed, since applicant has not disclosed that having such solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well with any flow scheme configured to provide desired flow controls for the user.
As to claim 17, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the method as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the modified apparatus of Kishita.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights